The El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (MAC)
LAND USE/PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday May 30, 2006 6:00pm El Sobrante Library
Meeting called to order at 6:02 p.m.
I. Discussion/comments re: Patrick Roche’s May presentation to MAC
Reviewed the summary Patrick provided to MAC members to develop a list of questions/concerns. Questions/concerns as follows:
Policies for Appian Way Corridor
- The determination to allow for the possibility of some mixed-use buildings to reach 35 feet high was a concern (f); would like information about the possibility of limiting buildings to 2 stories
- Would like clarification about the parking variances mentioned in (h)
- Request full description of what a P-1 Planned Unit District is (m)
- Question was raised about whether an overall density of 12 units per acre is desirable along the entire Appian Way corridor. Question was raised about whether rezoning all of Appian Way P-1 is optimal, or whether perhaps it makes more sense to concentrate rezoning in particular areas along Appian Way.
- For (g), “each individual multi-family development shall provide recreational facilities for its occupants”, suggestion was made that perhaps there is a way to encourage developers to work together when appropriate to provide superior recreation facilities for more residents, perhaps even partner with other entities to make recreational facilities available for the public?
- It was noted that Appian Way may provide a better opportunity for the type of walkable/bikeable small business district that residents expressed a desire to have in El Sobrante. It was questioned why this idea is absent from the policies for Appian Way, also why the civic uses of Appian Way are not included. Discussion of a community center, park(s), etc. occurred during charrettes and other community meetings. Would like to see more attention paid to the overall goal for Appian Way.
- Additionally, circulation in the triangle area where Appian and Valley View meet was not included. Would like to include a statement about improving that circulation, appearance, enhancing pedestrian and bicycle safety, providing neighborhood business, etc.
Policies for San Pablo Dam Rd.
Overall, question was raised about why San Pablo Dam Road is the primary business district (3-189), given the region’s dependency on that road as a throughway between highway 80 and highway 24 in Orinda. Members of the committee as well as members of the public present felt that it is not practical to expect the entire stretch of Appian Way to become a walkable, quaint business district without changing the nature of the roadway, despite the desire expressed during the Task Force and charrette meetings. Rather, it was suggested that perhaps one block of San Pablo Dam Rd may be the focus of a community business area, with another 1-2 small focal business areas along Appian Way. Re-zoning the entire stretch of Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Rd. to mixed use did not seem to be an effective mechanism for achieving the desired objective set forth by residents during multiple community meetings.
- Question was raised about the “unifying motif”—what does this mean? How would this be applied?
- (e) wondered why language was crafted to specifically state maintaining current supply of curb side parking; preference to change language so that this decision can be made at a later date when roadway considerations are fully discussed
- (f) feeling was voiced that while improvements to pedestrian traffic are needed, feeling maintained that this road is not the best pedestrian area in town
- (h) in mentioning the removal of the bypass couplet, why is the addition of a circulation route from Pitt Way not mentioned? Discussion ensued about the importance of having some improved circulation road in order for any new business area to be successful
- Question was raised about why a number of elements of importance to residents were not reflected in the policies for San Pablo Dam Road, namely:
- The development of a public square
- Creekside access/maintenance/preservation
- Bicycle circulation
Policies for the El Sobrante Area
- 3-163 and 3-165 are identical, thus 1 can be eliminated
- 3-164 states “the overall goal is to retain and reinforce the semi-rural and suburban character”, but it is not clear how most of the content expressed in the policies will do that. Would like to suggest that language is added that expresses the intent to emphasize multifamily residences along the San Pablo Dam Rd and Appian Way corridor in order to preserve undeveloped land and single family residences in outlying areas
- 3-167 states the need for more off-street parking; however, the current problem is more about placement of available parking than overall number. Would like language to reflect need to consolidate parking in such a way as to make parking easier to access and use.
- 3-170 Explain. Was discussion about whether it is really desirable to encourage development of larger parcels, but exact locations were not clear.
- 3-171 more explanation was desired
- 3-173 would like to include language about preservation of undeveloped land; importance of open space to community; mention the issues of steep grades/slopes and consider restriction of development on unstable hillsides
- Would like to add statement about the desire to acquire open space where possible
General Concerns:
- Concern was raised about the number of regional examples of vacant space in new mixed-use developments. A request was made for a presentation of successful mixed-use development of the scale being considered in a location moderately similar to El Sobrante
- Would like to know whether there are other communities that have done General Plan Amendments similar in scale to the one proposed that have succeeded without the funding from a redevelopment agency or other measure.
- How will the determination of which services are allowed in a particular area be decided? Ex: automotive businesses, tattoo parlors, liquor stores, etc.
- What is a moratorium and could it be a useful tool?
- How would traffic be affected if San Pablo Dam Rd. were reduced to 2 lanes between Castro Ranch Rd. and May Rd?
- Reviewed document formerly presented to MAC, El Sobrante: A Vision for Our Town, and began to revises for presentation to MAC in future meeting. General agreement that County policies as presented are not adequate in reflecting the overall goals for the community that had been discussed by residents over a multi-year planning process.
Other points:
- The possibility of MAC members talking with business owners about removing fences/consolidating parking and driveways where possible was discussed.
- Plan to have MAC members visit community groups to discuss planning issues for El Sobrante was discussed. Partial list of groups to contact included:
May Valley Neighborhood Council
Clark Road Neighbors
Friends of Garrity Creek
Spawners
Waldor School
La Colusa
R-9
Neigborhood Watch Groups
Chamber of Commerce
PTSAs
Boy’s and Girl’s Club
II. Decided to try to further develop thoughts about planning guidelines before inviting Catherine Kutsuris back to a meeting. Would like to consider having some suggested guidelines in draft form in August or September, and having Catherine return at that time.
Meeting adjourned 8:45 p.m.
